Can you trust Ofsted-speak?

I have read so many hundreds of Ofsted reports in the past four years, I sometimes think I should apply to become an inspector.

The current regime involves return visits every three years so I am seeing the verdict on some schools in the Bristol area for a second time.

Congratulations to Henleaze Junior and Elmlea Infant, who have both just been graded outstanding, just as they were in 2006.

The Post is keen to highlight the good work that goes on in our schools, as well as keeping an eye on the city's only too well known position near the bottom of national league tablesso we usually feature a report and photo after Ofsted have been to call.

Inspections are shorter and reports less detailed than before 2005, but nevertheless it can be difficult to convey what the watchdog is saying without using too much of its jargon.

For example, a key finding in reports is a school's "capacity to improve", hardly an everyday phrase. Similarly, the verdict on assessment, tracking, and use of data can give a strong clue as to how a school is doing, but it is not something that parents or the public can readily understand.

Ofsted's gradings are difficult enough. There are four: outstanding, good, satisfactory or inadequate. To the layman, satisfactory sounds fine, but Government Ministers say satisfactory is not good enough. However, a school with poor exam results will struggle to get more than satisfactory overall (grade 3) even though its students may be making tremendous progress compared with their standards when they started.

Today's Ofsted monitoring letter on Monk's Park is a case in point. It probably says more nice things than horrid, but one damning paragraph expressing "serious concerns" and the word inadequate used five times must be demoralising for those working so hard to make the school a better place.